Cawnpore Textile Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (iv) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - well as the submission of the workman, in paragraph-9 of the written statement which the employer had an opportunity to deny, lies an allegation of class bias against the mistry and other floor shift workers.r.s. dhavan, j.1. the present writ petition by employer (herein after referred to as such) m/s. awnpore textile limited, kanpur is against an award of the industrial tribunal (iv), lucknow dated january 23, 1979 in adjudication case no. 76 of 1976.2. the employee, one shri jethoo, the workman, was dismissed by the employer on october 19, 1976. the cause of dismissal followed a suspension order on an allegation that he had abused a senior mistry in the department where the workman also worked. a domestic enquiry was held and the employer on the report of the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the misdemeanour of the workman concerned in abusing the mistry warrants dismissal. thus, the employer passed dismissal order dated october 18, 1976. this action of the employer was approved under section 6-e of the u.p. industrial disputes act, 1947 by the industrial tribunal.3. the workman was aggrieved by the order of dismissal and he raised an industrial dispute; it was referred for adjudication by a referring order dated may 4, 1978.4. the industrial tribunal (iv) which adjudicated upon the matter came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry had given an adequate opportunity to the workman concerned (1) to be represented and (2) to present his defence without obstruction. there was no issue that the workman had abused the mistry concerned, a circumstance upon which he was charged and suspended initially for four days and thereafter continued for one month and subsequently dismissed.5. the only question which has to be looked into in the present writ petition is to certify whether the award is correct or incorrect, and whether the industrial tribunal (a) has the discretion to modulate the order of punishment; otherwise than may be accorded by the employer, and/or (b) to grant any other punishment so that it is compatible with the gravamen of the charge. beyond this, there is no other issue which may be examined by the high court in this case.6. there can be no issue on the legal proposition that the labour court or the industrial tribunal has been granted discretion to modulate. punishment so that it is consistent with the gravamen of the charge. this discretion is given to the labour court or industrial tribunal, as the case may be, under section 11-a of the industrial disputes act, 1947. once it is recognised that the labour court or industrial tribunal has the independence to co-ordinate punishment with the misdemeanour of workman, unless the discretion of the adjudicating authority has been callously exercised, merely because the high. court gives/may have another opinion, is hardly a ground to interfere with the decision in the impugned award.7. unnoticed by the industrial tribunal, as. well as the submission of the workman, in paragraph-9 of the written statement which the employer had an opportunity to deny, lies an allegation of class bias against the mistry and other floor shift workers. a specific allegation which is on record of the adjudication becomes relevant when the employer had an opportunity to counteract the allegation but did not. barring mentioning that the allegation is vague it was the obligation of the employer to make an enquiry that if provocation of an ethnic or class bias was the cause of an industrial strife as, such allegations can lead to disbalancing espirit-de-corps and result in industrial unrest.8. having perused the award and the pleadings of the parties which are mailers of record, the question of the workman having abused a mistry has not been denied. this court cannot rule out the possibility that the workman's misdemeanour was a reaction to whatever may have been the oppressive situation and, thus, the workman said that he may have.9. the argument raised before this court on behalf of the workman that the labour court found that four days of suspension was enough punishment, is in error with the record. the suspension of four days was carried to a month. the charge was having abused a mistry. the explanation had been seen by the industrial tribunal. the industrial tribunal gave its reasons that to dismiss a workman for this solitary incident, for which other factors are also on record which this court had already indicated, the termination of the employee was definitely not consistent with the charges. the only summing up this court can do is that the industrial tribunal has committed no error in setting aside the order of dismissal on the ground that one month's of suspension was enough punishment.10. learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions cited two cases reported in (1987) 4. scc.691 and the workmen of firestone tyre & rubber co. of india ltd. v. the management and ors. (1973-i-llj-278). after having perused these cases the court finds that these cases are out of context, in the facts and circumstances of present case, and have no application to the matter before this court. these (sic) are discussions on the vires, in effect, of section 11-a of the act, aforesaid. such a matter is not in issue in the present case, and even if it were, then these very cases referred to have concluded the academic discussion.11. the petition, thus, fails and is dismissed with costs.